This goes for the entire panel btw.
Here is my favorite lie:
“Russia worked on being a great power through military means since 2008”
[edit: Proof, for people that dont follow this longterm:
1. Kennan Institute Advisory Council member Lucian Kim: “the decision to attack was made at some point in 2021” src: click
2. Davyd Arakhamiia, leader of the Servant of the People faction who led the Ukrainian delegation at “peace” talks with the Russians in Belarus and Türkiye in November 2023: “Well, we couldn’t just sign something - and then they would have retreated and everyone would have taken a breath and then they would have come back more prepared - because they actually entered unprepared, yes, to such resistance.” src: click ]
instead of the old
“Russia secured its borders through military and soft power means, more proactively in the recent past because of an incoming demographic change, which russia and everybody else saw coming (that will halve its military capacity within 20 years).”
That gets then worked into a meager
“Which means that russia wants to impose its military rule in europe”
instead of the old
“Russia is afraid that Ukraine would have become wildly economically successful, because of free trade with the EU”.
Which gets then worked into a completely fictional
“But I think the full scale invasion of Ukraine however shows, that russia is now frankly determined to demolish the post cold war european security order, by use of force”
instead of the publicly known --
“Well the US financed, promoted, co-organized, and chose the political rulers of interim Ukraine during and after the Maidan”.
So the prerequisite for getting on a talking panel within Chatham House -- as an expert is, that you have thirty years worth of a black hole the size of an entire barn, in your historical knowledge, that is very selective -- and only has one thing that you mourn day after day, after day, after day --- and that is, that Ukraine can not be robbed of its trueborn right to select the military organization it belongs to and therefore which country builds military bases on the black sea, whenever it gets an absolute idiot elected as the next president that to this day seemingly doesnt understand, to what extent he has been lied to.
Trump will explain it to him very soon, dont you worry. (Nato? Nato? Nato?)
So only if you fulfill this very selective in its own right criteria, of being a complete romanticist, with a lack of historical knowledge thats purposefully both immense and selective, and sees russias full fledged attack on Ukraine as entirely unprovoked - which the non fully fledged attack right before of course never was (crimeas occupation was a reaction to the maidan revolution) - but then Putin at just the right time (Covid!) became crazy --- after you’ve created a FRESH entirely new narrative, that Putin at no point became crazy, because thats not a narrative you can use anymore in polite western society, or the western public, so you came up with something new, that just by coincidence outlines that he just wanted to destroy the european security order - for really no reason - since 2008
(All nuclear proliferation contracts canceled by the US, … but you have to ignore that.)
- only then you get your panel spot at Chatham House at this very moment.
And if you are a peace activist, that actually went through the archives, and researched the step by step progression (and public and less public US voices of the foreign policy establishment at the time) of Nato enlargement, because there were progressive rounds of Nato enlargement -- you get your Hoover Institution led debate panel on the youtube channel Zero Hedge, so no journalist will ever dare to quote you. Ever.
Das ist diese Gesellschaft.
Easy as that.
Oh, and dont worry, that all of that contradicts the initial western war narrative. (As shown by the contradictions in the beginning of this posting.) Because you are at Chatham House of course! So that means you dont have to care about argumentative consistency in the west anymore - you have the entire media ecosystem behind you.
And the entire first western war narrative was nothing but a lie.
But never mind that (its probably just circumstatial) -- the new thing you invented, is the truth and nothing but the truth - so far as the everchanging moderators on NTV and ZDF heute are being able to be convinced.
Because they in return, then convince the wider public.
Gut, Propaganda hat noch immer niemand entdeckt, was will man machen.…
Bleibt eigentlich nur noch eine Lücke im Europäischen Medien-Narrativ: Mit welchen Truppen?
Mit denen die Putin erst noch rekrutieren wird, in 20 Jahren, und mit denen er die Nato dann angreifen wird.
Während er sich aktuell hütet wie nur was eine generelle Mobilmachung auszurufen, um nicht gestürzt zu werden. Klar, oder?
Bonus: Und dass Russland wirtschaftlich stagniert, zum Juniorpartner von China wird und seit jeher keine Supermacht mehr war, wird, oder je Ambitionen jenseits der einer Regionalmacht mit Kolonien gezeigt hätte, war dann wahrscheinlich kein Fehler in der Argumentationslogik der Chathamhouse Vortragenden (Wer erinnert sich nicht, an die reale globale Gefahr des Kommunismus! Wegen der die US ein südamerikanisches Land nach dem anderen, …), sondern ein Planungsfehler Russlands. Seit 2008. Der selbe Planungsfehler.
Ja, sowas kommt vor…
Vor allem, wenn man schon lange keine Supermacht mehr ist, aber militärisch diesen Status immer noch trägt, wie ja das sensationell erfolgreiche Militär Russlands bis heute unter Beweis stellt…
Moment, was war noch mal der Einleitungssatz des Experten? Ach ja, “Ich habe mich seit 30 Jahren in das russische Denken eingefühlt und Russland sieht sich selbst als als “entitled”…”
